German strategy for building AC

A large part of the game depends on who the Allies decide to attack. They can decide between KGF (kill Germany first) or KJF (kill Japan first).

For people who are new to the game, I think a KGF would be easier to pull off. All the Allied capitals are near(er) to Berlin, so the logistics are easier. Also, Germany can threaten Moscow quicker than Japan if not threatened.

However, a KJF can work against players who are used to playing against KGF. It is usually best to go this route if Japan has a bad first turn, although I have won games where I had a KJF in mind before the game started. In this strat, your goal is to reduce Japan down to Tokyo and maybe a couple other territories, and to wipe out their navy. In this way, only a minimal Allied force is needed to contain them, and all attention can shift to Germany.

Note that I don’t mean to ignore the other axis power that you aren’t focused on. This is usually only a problem in KGF, and Japan can reach Moscow quickly if left unchecked. Usually the U.S. will deal with Japan a bit in KGF, and Russia will hold off Germany with a little U.K. support in a KJF.

As the Axis, you must identify if your oppenent is playing a KGF or KJF. The nation that is the focus of the Allied attacks must play defensively while the other nation kills Russia.

I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska.  I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50.  Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR.  Sorry.

I personally think buying German naval units in the Baltic are not that worth it because the Allies should do the following:

Russia should constantly harass Germany and not allow them a foothold in Karelia.  If Germany moves into Karelia without sufficient forces (which happens when they purchase naval units), then Russia takes out Karelia thereby weakening German land forces.  With weakened land forces, Germany loses the threat against Russia

UK builds the Aircraft Carrier, transports and fighters (R1, R2) then corners the German fleet in the Baltic (R3).  Either Germany attacks the UK fleet and will lose its fighters and fleet in the process.  Or UK attacks the German fleet with minimal losses if the fighters wisely choose to abandon the Baltic fleet.  Or UK attaks with some losses if the fighters stay on (but its worth it to kill the German fighters)

US loans UK the 2 transports and destroyer as fodder in case the German navy attacks, while they keep building transports into Africa.

Then you have a 3 on 1 against Germany with no Japanese help against Russia until R5, R6.  Anyways, my 2 cents

Tonight’s looking good.  You around?

@newpaintbrush:

So are you saying that the Norway-Wrus-Ukr attack is bad for LL and for ADS for the SAME REASONS?  No, of course not.  See my last post.  Would you like to expound on the idea that what is good for ADS is good for LL and vice versa?  For I disagree.

My contention is that what is good in LL is good in ADS HOWEVER what is good in ADS may not be good in LL.
My point about the nor/wrus/ukr battle is that just b/c you may succeed in certian battles (either individual battles here and there or a few battles taken in the same turn) in LL way way way more in ADS does not make it a sound strategy for the entire game.  And I laid out just a couple of example where you could have high odds battles but it hurts you in the long run (the Moscow scenerio and the crazy ala move etc.)

It is much easier to translate LL strats to ADS.

I don’t think I said this triple would “inevitablely” fail in LL, I believe I said it “may” fail which in a way would confirm what the ADS odds told you in rd 1.
I certainly think there could be a coerrelation between LL odds and ADS odds.

Due to the nature of LL we know you can have a battle of a 100% success, which in ADS may be 90-95%.  I don’t think it is then unreasonable to think that multiple battles in LL where you have 80% success awould translate to maybe 65% in ADS.  Thus it isn’t unreasonable to think a LL battle with 60% success rate may then indeed be 40% in ADS (per your triple example).

So when playing a game in ADS if you have a threshold to actually go through with most battles (say you would like a 60-70% chance to succeed in ADS) that does not mean you’d have 60-70 in LL, the LL odds would probably be much closer to 80.  So when you see a battle at 40% success in ADS it should probably tell you that you have maybe 60% or so in LL BUT those AREN’T great odds for LL, considering you can be much more efficient in your attacks in LL.

60% odds are not that great for LL, considering the best LL players probably should win about 75-80% of their games.  Why lower your standards to 60%?  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  Maybe it is a good opening and causes enough damage to Germany, but I think it can leave Russia a bit too thin.

And yes there are times where 1-1 is a good trade and even times where you come out on the low end but the battle can still be deemed a success, but I don’t think Russia 1 is that time esp since the Axis can usually make an Africa push and Japan can make early gains in Asia, and it still takes the UK/US a few turns to get their shuck going.

Edit:

I should also say that by strat, I mean a series of moves (or buys) that take place over several turns not something a player may do in only one move or one turn.

@ncscswitch:

PACFLT is a modern Department of Defense acronym for PACific FLeeT

I think Pan-Atlantic Conference Flight Leadership and Tactics makes so much more sense.

im doing that fairly well Vs U-505 in the league  (don´t know where the game is going exactly but anyway)

i like it becuse it enables germany to “controll” All UK SZ from SZ7.

Yo.

Caspian Sub has 20 articles posted on their site. Many are pure strategy articles; some are Axis puzzles. They are all for revised.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

Peace